Grain or noise?

[pokerplayer269]

'Allo! I just got back my first roll of normally processed slide film from the lab! w00t! Most of the shots came out pretty good I think. I wasn't super impressed with the scans though. Besides having very dull and dark colors compared to the slides, there was quite a bit of noise/grain. I can't tell though if it was the scanner or just the film. Here's a 100% crop of one of the scans: http://i40.tinypic.com/f4r2i9.jpg

The film I used was Fuji Velvia 100 so it seems odd that there would be that much grain, which is why I'm thinking that the lab's scanners are at fault.

 

[archphoto]

I would check your film first with a magnifier. I ran your picture twice through Noise NInja and it still didn't look right.

Peter

 

[aparat]

It seems that the picture was underexposed. Scanners struggle with shadow detail, and noise increases quite a bit. I would say that chroma noise is more visible than grain in the shadows.

 

[Shangheye]

I agree that it looks more like noise from trying to scan an under exposed slide. K

 

[Lopaka]

The lab scans that are provided of the entire roll as part of the processing are very low resolution to start with and generally poor quality. Getting a quality high res scan is not cheap. Pricing generally starts at around $10 if under 10 Mb. A full resolution high quality scan of ta 35mm slide generally goes around $50 at custom labs. If getting good scans of any quantity of slides is your goal, then you should consider investing in a dedicated film scanner. You can get better results from dense shadow areas with multiple pass options on these machines.

Bob

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

$50. Holy crap!

 

[BetterSense]

Indeed. This is not the place to discuss such matters but scanning is really one thing that holds back film, IMO. If it was easy and cheap to get high-quality high-resolution files along with your negatives it would be easier for people to embrace film, because they would give up no options. As it is, film is actually inferior to a digital camera if you must work digitally in post. I think it is a conspiracy by companies that have a foot on both sides of the dark side, to sell digital cameras.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As it is, film is actually inferior to a digital camera if you must work digitally in post.

I disagree, I can scan my negatives at 4000 dpi or I can have it scanned professionally higher dpi. Neither have been a problem for digital post processing. The low resolution CD, which are now provided with film processing, however, make very good drink coasters and Christmas tree ornaments.

Steve

 

[JBrunner]

As it is, film is actually inferior to a digital camera if you must work digitally in post.

Entirely untrue. Depends on many factors.

In this case, the scan is introducing noise. Get thee to hybrid photo for a full discussion.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Entirely untrue. Depends on many factors.

In this case, the scan is introducing noise. Get thee to hybrid photo for a full discussion.

What he said!

Steve

 

[Prest_400]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

$50. Holy crap!

Heck, for that amount of money if I already had a darkroom and colour enlarger, I'd just start doing Ilfochrome printing.

Prints from negs do also suffer this when underexposed (my lab does scan-print, as 95% or more labs do today). It can be an interesting way to see when the photo has underexposure. I did underexpose a bit one exposure and all was noisy noisy, colour was bad. But well.

 

[JBrunner]

I think we have established that this is a scanning issue, and I would encourage all interested to visit HybridPhoto.com for discussion of issues related to scanning film.